41:0512(49)AR - - HHS, SSA, Region IV, Dallas, TX and AFGE Local 1336 - - 1991 FLRAdec AR - - v41 p512
[ v41 p512 ]
The decision of the Authority follows:
41 FLRA No. 49
Before Chairman McKee and Members Talkin and Armendariz.
I. Statement of the Case
This case is before the Authority on the Union's request for reconsideration of the Authority's decision in 40 FLRA 644 (1991). The Agency did not file an opposition to the request. Because the Union fails to establish that extraordinary circumstances exist which would warrant reconsideration of our decision, we will deny the request.
II. The Decision in 40 FLRA 644
In 40 FLRA 644, the Arbitrator found that the grievant's appraisals were conducted properly and that the grievant was properly rated. We denied the Union's exceptions to the Arbitrator's award. We concluded that: (1) the award did not fail to draw its essence from the parties' collective bargaining agreement; (2) the Union failed to establish that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority; (3) the Arbitrator's award was not based on a nonfact; and (4) the Union failed to establish that the award was contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 4302(b).
III. The Union's Request for Reconsideration
The Union contends that there are extraordinary circumstances warranting reconsideration of our decision in 40 FLRA 644. The Union asserts that the Arbitrator's award and conclusions are inconsistent with "the law [5 U.S.C. § 4302(b)(3)] and its attendant regulations [5 C.F.R. § 430.205(e)] and the contract between the [A]gency and the [U]nion." Request for Reconsideration at 6.
The Union maintains that the Arbitrator's award "denies substantive rights to employees to know how they will be rated during the appraisal year in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4302(b)(3)." Id. at 5. Therefore, the Union requests that the Authority set aside the Arbitrator's award and remand the matter to the Arbitrator for a decision in accordance with the law, regulations and the parties' agreement.
IV. Analysis and Conclusions
Section 2429.17 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations permits a party that can establish the existence of "extraordinary circumstances" to request reconsideration of a decision of the Authority. We conclude that the Union has not established extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of section 2429.17 to warrant reconsideration of our decision in 40 FLRA 644.
The Union's arguments constitute nothing more than disagreement with and an attempt to relitigate the merits of our decision in 40 FLRA 644 and do not establish the extraordinary circumstances necessary for reconsideration. See U.S. Department of the Army, New Cumberland Army Depot, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania and American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2004, 40 FLRA 1032, 1033-34 (1991). Accordingly, we will deny the request.
The Union's request for reconsiderati